In Genoa the developed nations are holding meetings behind high walls, while underdeveloped nations stand idly by, watching and waiting for a bigger piece of the international pie. The people inside are politicians, that is to say they are not corporate executives.

The people making the din outside are neither politicians nor executives. They represent, to one degree or another, the endangered ideals of youth. They are in conflict with the political leaders inside. To a degree, this confrontation between idealistic youth and political leadership is worldwide. Probably it has always been so, but now the youth are more mobile, more organised, more vocal.

A study of Political Science gives one a background in the forms of government a country may put into place. Economics teaches the law of supply and demand, along with a theory for developing and managing large commercial ventures. Neither school gives adequate preparation for the real world controlled by politicians. Economic activity takes place in a political milieu, as suggested by the politician's Golden Rule. Enter the discipline of study known as Political Economy.

The familiar Golden Rule tells us we each must treat others as we wish to be treated. Cynics re-phrase this as, "He who has the gold, makes the rules." In reality, it is, "He who makes the rules can take the gold." Politicians in office, as lawmakers, 'make the rules'.

An excessively strong executive, in the absence of checks to balance things, can always make rules that will bring him the gold. To do so may make him unpopular. Thus he must camouflage his greed, keeping a wary eye on the omnipresent competing interests. Even a lion at feed can be driven into the bush if there are enough hyenas at his ribs.

As protection, politicians collect allies by promising to share the loot. The loot is attractive, being the lion's share (all). This explains the energy and money men put into achieving high office, both as active up-front actors and behind-the-scenes king makers.

Political office has monetary value, and it is generally worth what it costs. That explains why people will spend five million ringgits to get a political office that pays an official salary of only ten thousand ringgits a month. Once in office they plan to get their money back, one way or another.

In some respects, government and business have competing interests. The free enterprise system, as the foundation of capitalism, prefers to operate in an unregulated, unfettered manner, keeping all the profits to itself. This can lead to abuses. As Karl Marx pointed out, the profits may not be distributed to the shareholder/owners as agreed, but retained and accumulated by the managers to acquire other profit-making enterprises. Eventually, all profit centers are owned and controlled by a few owners, who may then eliminate all competition by merger or unfair competetion. Capital, and the economic power it represents, thus tends to concentrate.

Government, in the form of taxes and licence fees, insinuates itself as a silent partner, often taking half or more of the profits without owning a share or providing an iota of management. Businessmen have a natural resentment at this, and hire expensive accountants to minimise the portion taken by governement. There is an interplay between business and government, with government providing a favorable environment to foster business, and in exchange receiving a portion of the proceeds. It is a symbiotic relationship in which the citizen/employee/consumer plays only the smallest part.

In Malaysia the government/business relationship is not clearly defined. Business interests are commingled among government, politicians in power, their friends and families, and their political party. Loyalties are thus mixed, and the citizen/employee/consumer rarely participates in making the rules, in the form of laws, which in a democracy are made in the general interest. This inability to participate exists even though it is often the savings of the employee which are being used to gain control of the business.

Businessmen who should be devoted to the efficient operation and management of their business spend valuable time defending against the personal and political depradations of greedy politicians. In Malaysia, money greases the wheel of bureaucracy.

Malaysia has a sham of a stock exchange, where a great many of the shares are owned by the government, politicians, and the Umno/BN party in power. They thus have a keen common interest in keeping the value of the shares high, and an even stronger incentive to attract foreign funds to aid in the effort. This interest translates into interference.

The entire structure of free enterprise has been compromised by the incursions of Umno/BN politicians into the business enterprises of the country. They have used public funds to take majority positions in the larger corporations, installing management executives loyal not to the business, but subordinate to a telephone call from the prime minister's department.

The prime minister holds a threat of direct government intervention and takeover of any industry or company which displeases him. All major corporations are under the direct or nomineee control of the prime minister. Every business is subject to interference or attack from the government, as directed by the prime minister.

There is no banking institution, fund or other significant source of capital that can operate independently. Even foreign corporations must constantly re-evaluate the political climate in order to escape bureaucratic delay and subtle interference in their business operations.

Recent bailouts using public funds have led to the removal of the ex-finance minister. The prime minister has taken over the job, and been given six months by his party to recover their money, along with other assets deemed to have been diverted into private hands. The prime minister is thus under pressure to improve an impossible situation, as there is no way these very large sums can be earned in such a short time.

His answer is to try to prop up the market sufficiently to lure unsuspecting foreign funds, at the same time removing the eyesore of debt by shifting it from public scrutiny on the open share exchange to the secrecy of private status. Out of sight, out of mind.

It will not improve the situation. The debt will remain. The bleeding wounds of interest due will not heal. For the prime minister it is a futile effort. He is the only one who does not know it. And now he has only five months left.